The Delhi HC on Monday slammed Twitter for its reluctance to block the account of an “atheist organisation” notorious for repeatedly posting blasphemous content against a Hindu Gods and Goddess, noting that the social media behemoth would have been prompt in taking action had the content been related to any other religion.
Hearing a PIL seeking the removal of objectionable content against Hindu Gods and Goddesses from Twitter, the court asked the social media organisation why it could not block the account of the habitual offender just like it had suspended the account of former US President Donald Trump.
After Twitter said that users posted all kinds of content and it cannot block their accounts, a bench of acting chief justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla observed: “If this is the logic then why have you blocked Mr Trump? It is ultimately boiling down to this, people you feel sensitive about, you will block them. You are not bothered about the sentiments and religion of other people in the world. We dare say, if it were a thing done for any other religion, you would be much more sensitive.”
Coming down hard on Twitter, the Court asked Twitter to file an affidavit, explaining its policy and the circumstances under which it resorts to such blocking of accounts.
The case was pertaining to blasphemous posts made by the ‘Atheist Republic’, a Twitter account operated by self-proclaimed atheist Armin Navabi. The Twitter handle of the Atheist Republic has been posting content against Hindu deities. Its posts against Goddess Kali have been a cause to hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus. Advocate Aditya Deshwal appeared for the petitioner while Advocate Vrinda appeared for the Atheist Republic.
Twitter, in its defence, argued that it had taken action against the said handle in compliance with the court’s orders, however, it had not disabled the account permanently.
The court said, “If Twitter has removed the content that is the admission that the content is offensive so you have a grievance against Twitter. The new rules empower the court. We have seen the material and we have no doubt that it is offensive and you could be prohibited.”
J Sanghi: If twitter has removed the content that is admission that the content is offensive so you have a grievance against twitter. The new rules empowers the court. We have seen the material and we have not doubt that it is offensive and you could be prohibited.
— Bar & Bench – Live Threads (@lawbarandbench) March 28, 2022
Advocate Aditya Deshwal submitted, “Armin Navabi is the founder of this account and he is mocking the proceedings. They are circulating blasphemous content. They may be atheists but they cannot ridicule others.”
Justice Chawla told Advocate Vrinda, “Either you make a statement that you will not post similar material or we will pass an interim order directing suspension of your account.”
J Chawla: Either you make a statement that you will not post similar material or we will pass an interim order directing suspension of your account.
— Bar & Bench – Live Threads (@lawbarandbench) March 28, 2022
The court then ordered the owners of the Atheist Republic to remove the URLs contained in the petition. The court also directed the Centre to examine the said post or any similar post which may be hosted by the Atheist Republic and to examine whether action is called for under Section 69A of the IT act. The bench took notice of the fact that Twitter has blocked the account of certain individuals in public life from time to time. It, therefore, directed Twitter to place before the court its policy and explain under what circumstances it has resorted to blocking accounts.
